Global Warming?

This article has a part 2, which can be viewed here.

Firstly, I do not disagree that the Earth’s temperature is rising. (Edit: I should say ‘changing’). I do disagree that it is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions created by humans. Consider this article in the context of a court presentation. To convict someone you need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation is true. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

If there is any doubt that humans are directly altering the latent temperature of the planet then all of the taxation, depopulation and energy price schemes that are being pushed through are being done because of another reason.

The main thrust of this hysteria about man-made global warming stems from the UN IPCC report. In order to give their report credibility to the ignorant masses, the UN frequently mentions that large majority of scientists endorse the report.

This is a lie.

Majority Of Scientists Do Not Support Man Made Warming Theory

…Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers “implicit” endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no “consensus.”

The introduction and the summary of the IPCC’s report was written entirely by politicians under the mandate of the UN, the input of actual scientists was minimal. In addition, all sections that were written by selected scientists were edited to comply with the report summary.

Some of the scientists involved even admitted that the IPCC models failed to accurately predict climate change and that “none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate”.

MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING – IS POLITICS NOT SCIENCE

…Nor are the purveyors of panic giving much notice to the scientists like Dr. Chris Landsea who in his own words, resigned from the IPCC because:

“I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound.”

There is PLENTY of doubt about the IPCC report, they are just not reporting it to you. Why? This is even more clear to see when you consider that although most people do not believe in the man made global warming hype the UN and the governments are pushing ahead with these taxes, restrictions and regulations anyway.

The temperature of the Earth has oscillated since it formed, over 4.5 billion years ago. As recently as the seventies, there was the global cooling hysteria which had its proponents screaming from the rooftops about how the Earth was entering into a new ice age, billions are going to die etc.

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000…This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. — Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

That did not stick. So they left it for a few decades and now they are trying to push a new flavour of climate change. Why?

Because the global warming subject is a catalyst for globalists and other elitists to push for sweeping changes to the social, industrial and legal structure of the world. A common fear to scare the global population into acquiescence…

“The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind”, by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5

Now, we have established that the Earth is warming, but why? What can contribute to the rise of this global temperature if it isn’t humans breathing or cows farting?

Before we answer that question, we should take a quick look at basic thermodynamics (which are the laws that govern the behaviour of energy and entropy in a system.) Hot objects emit more energy than they absorb. Cold objects absorb more energy than they emit. That is about as basic as it gets. You can prove this with an experiment at home. Put some water in an ice tray and pop it in the freezer. After a while it will freeze. Obviously. Thermodynamically the freezer is essentially a form of energy vacuum, because it is designed to stay cold (absorb more than it emits) by channeling energy (heat) away from the freezer. The energy level of the water drops as it constantly emits more than it absorbs. The ambient energy level of the freezer is below water’s freezing point, so the energy of the water can drop so low that the water freezes.

Now, take the ice out and put it in a hot oven and you can literally watch the ice melt before your eyes. Why? Well it is the same as the above, but in reverse. Now the system has more energy than the ice. The ice absorbs more than it emits. Its temperature rises until the H2O molecules have enough energy to break the lattice in the ice, and it becomes water again. If it is hot enough, the water will heat up, absorbing more and more energy, eventually boiling off and becoming steam. Steam is a very high energy form of water.

I think we can all agree that this is basic common sense. You wouldn’t stick an ice cube in an oven and come back 30 seconds later to find the inside of the oven looking like Santa’s Grotto. Ever.

Now that is out of the way, lets look at the main source of energy in the solar system.

The Sun.

There is a reason why it is called the Solar System, and that is because the Sun dominates it in every single possible way. Let establish this with some interesting facts about our local mega-ball of plasma.

The sun contains over 99.5% of the mass of the entire solar system.
The sun is over 1 million times bigger than the Earth. Click here for a comparative graphic.
In a single second, the sun generates enough energy to supply all U.S. energy needs for 9,000,000 years.
Global human energy consumption per year = Solar output of less than 1.5 millionths of a second.*
One second of solar output = More than 800,000 years of human energy needs.

The sun is about 92 million miles away. Click here for a comparative graphic. Using the fastest production car ever built, the gorgeous SSC Aero travelling at 256.15 miles per hour, it would take you over 350,000 years.

Reading those facts, it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise to read this:

“Solar energy is energy from the Sun. This energy drives climate and the weather supports virtually all life on Earth.” — Solar energy, Wikipedia.

Now, back to thermodynamics. Let’s say that the solar output goes up. We would expect to see the effects of this throughout the solar system, ‘global warming’ on other planets if you will.

Well, the solar output has been increasing. An obvious effect of the sun getting hotter would be other planets exhibiting signs of global warming. Like Mars, for instance.

Look to Mars for the truth on global warming

The sun’s increased irradiance over the last century, not C02 emissions, is responsible for the global warming we’re seeing, says the celebrated scientist, and this solar irradiance also explains the great volume of C02 emissions.

“It is no secret that increased solar irradiance warms Earth’s oceans, which then triggers the emission of large amounts of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. So the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.”

How about Jupiter?

May 2006: Jupiter’s Great Red Spot is a swirling storm seen for over 300 years, since the beginning of telescopicChristopher Go noticed it had been joined by Red Spot Jr – formed as smaller whitish oval-shaped storms merged and then developed the remarkable reddish hue. This sharp Hubble Space Telescope image showing the two salmon-colored Jovian storms was recorded in April. About half the size of the original Red Spot, Red Spot Jr. is similar in diameter to planet Earth. Seen here below and left of the ancient storm system, it trails the Great Red Spot by about an hour as the planet rotates from left to right. While astronomers still don’t exactly understand why Jupiter’s red spots are red, they do think the appearance of Red Spot Jr. provides evidence for climate change on the Solar System’s ruling gas giant.

SUV’s On Jupiter?

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

The simple fact is that throughout the ages the earth has swung wildly between a warm, wet, stable climate, to a cold, dry and windy one – long before the first fossil fuel was burned. The changes we are now witnessing are a walk in the park compared to the battering that our planet has taken in the past.

This is not a defense of the oil cartels or the Neo-Con wreckers, who would have every motivation to ignore global warming whether it is man-made or not.

Nor is it a blanket denial of the fact that the earth is getting very gradually hotter, but how do we reconcile global warming taking place at the farthest reaches of the solar system with the contention that it is caused by human activity? Have our exhaust fumes left earth’s atmosphere and slipped through a black hole to Triton?

Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists

Global warming on other planets

Sun’s Direct Role in Global Warming May Be Underestimated, Duke Physicists Report

Remember our experiment with the ice and the oven? Of course, it over-simplifies the issue, there are countless processes that complicate the transfer of energy around the solar system and on individual planets. For example, if the sun’s output increases, it warms the oceans, which then release CO2 into the atmosphere, as is described in this next quote:

Dr. Abdussamatov goes further, debunking the very notion of a greenhouse effect. “Ascribing ‘greenhouse’ effect properties to the Earth’s atmosphere is not scientifically substantiated,” he maintains. “Heated greenhouse gases, which become lighter as a result of expansion, ascend to the atmosphere only to give the absorbed heat away.”

The real news from Saint Petersburg — demonstrated by cooling that is occurring on the upper layers of the world’s oceans — is that Earth has hit its temperature ceiling. Solar irradiance has begun to fall, ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012 to 2015. The depth of the decline in solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2040, and “will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60” lasting some 50 years, after which temperatures will go up again.

The truth is that this is all perfectly natural and unless the human race comes up with a plan to regulate the temperature of the sun, is completely unavoidable.

As far as human CO2 being a driving factor in global CO2 levels:

From The Global Warming Hoax:

Some Quick Facts:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant, but a naturally occurring atmospheric substance.

CO2 makes up .054% of the atmosphere.

Volcanoes produce far more CO2 than humans.

Animals produce more CO2 than volcanoes.

Decaying vegetation produces more CO2 than animals (remember Gore’s explanation for why the red line is so squiggly?; He left out half the explanation.)

The OCEANS produce more CO2 than vegetation, animals, volcanoes, and the puny, insignificant amount of CO2 humans produce.

Do you still believe beyond a reasonable doubt, that human-created CO2 is the primary driver of global warming?

These facts cannot be unknown by the multi-billion dollar UN and government agencies, yet they continue to push this ‘humans are to blame myth’, using the media and government owned public services, like state school.

Labour ‘is brainwashing pupils with Al Gore climate change film’

Children are being brainwashed by propaganda from the Government on climate change, a court heard yesterday.

The “New Labour Thought Police” were accused of indoctrinating youngsters by handing out thousands of Climate Change Packs to schools.

The packs include the documentary film An Inconvenient Truth, made by Bill Clinton’s former vice president Al Gore.

The film – acclaimed by the movie industry and the global warming lobby – was described in the High Court as irredeemable, containing serious scientific inaccuracies and “sentimental mush”.

Here is a quote from an open letter written by a physics teacher by the name of Wellington Grey:

The number of questions that relate to global warming is appalling. I do not deny that pupils should know about the topic, nor do I deny its importance. However, it should not be the main focus of every topic. The pupils (and their teachers) are growing apathetic from overexposure.

A paper question asked: `Why must we develop renewable energy sources?’ This is a political question. Worse yet, a political statement. I’m not saying I disagree with it, just that it has no place on a physics GCSE paper.

Pupils are taught to poke holes in scientific experiments, to constantly find what is wrong. However, never are the pupils given ways to determine when an experiment is reliable, to know when an experiment yields information about the world that we can trust. This encourages the belief that all quantitative data is unreliable and untrustworthy. Some of my pupils, after a year of the course, have gone from scientifically minded individuals to thinking, “It’s not possible to know anything, so why bother?” Combining distrust of scientific evidence with debates won on style and presentation alone is an unnerving trend that will lead society astray.

Destroying the critical thinking process of a population is important for creating a moral and scientific class system. This all revolves around the gathering of power away from all countries and peoples of the world, in one place.

Global warming, as an environmental movement, has added benefits for those in power. By blaming the human race for global warming, they can then proceed to punish the human race for existing, as our mere existence threatens Gaia, or Mother Earth. This leads conveniently to population control, and population reduction. Think of the children!!!

Meet the women who won’t have babies – because they’re not eco friendly

Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers – and a voice calling her Mummy.

But the very thought makes her shudder with horror.

Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet.

Having large families ‘is an eco-crime’

HAVING large families should be frowned upon as an environmental misdemeanour in the same way as frequent long-haul flights, driving a 4×4 car and failing to reuse plastic bags, according to a report to be published tomorrow by a green think tank.

Could We Save the Earth by Reproducing Less?

Even the most greenest of American families are generally hurting the earth, just not at the rate of others. So could we really save the earth by limiting our population? Would it be right for governments to limit how many children a couple can have for the sake of saving the planet?

Top Scientist Advocates Mass Culling 90% Of Human Population

A top scientist gave a speech to the Texas Academy of Science last month in which he advocated the need to exterminate 90% of the population through the airborne ebola virus. Dr. Eric R. Pianka’s chilling comments, and their enthusiastic reception again underscore the elite’s agenda to enact horrifying measures of population control.

Leading Scientists: Overpopulation ‘is main threat to planet’

Government Report: Bio-Weapons Could Be Used To Combat Overpopulation

The story of over-population is also a myth and just an excuse to condition the public to accept the killing over 5 billion people and embracing global government.

Is human population really the problem?

Newspapers have become overpopulated, so to speak, with warnings about human overpopulation. Such warnings have been issued regularly for decades – even centuries – with consistently incorrect predictions. On the first Earth Day, Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 bestseller, The Population Bomb, was widely quoted. He predicted that by 1985, the “population explosion” would lead to world famine, the death of the oceans, a reduction in life expectancy to 42 years, and the wasting of the Midwest into a vast desert. He was about as accurate as Malthus himself, the Englishman who, in 1798, predicted catastrophic food shortages that never came.

The population doomsayers usually offer the solution of global government – BIG government – to determine, in Gaylord Nelson’s words, “the optimum number of people.” Ironically, where there is famine, the problem usually is not an excess of people but an excess of government, which leads to gross misallocation and misuse of resources as corrupt bureaucrats or dictators seek power more than the welfare their subjects.

Overpopulation – Myth and Reality

It has become the bogeyman used to scare us into accepting desperate measures to curb this threat to our way of life. A vivid picture is painted of our being submerged in the struggle for survival. We will drown in a sea of people, gasping for the room to breathe, as the last square foot of inhabitable land sinks beneath the overwhelming tide of surging humanity.

Overpopulation: Not a Problem Now, and Never Will Be

So it turns out that if 5% of the United States were converted into urban area with a population density of 6,000/km2, and 45% were converted into suburban area with a population density of 2,000/km2, with the remaining 50% left for rural area, parks, and farms, there would be enough room for 3 billion in the urban areas, and 9 billion in the suburban areas, for a total population of 12 billion. This is in the US alone. This scheme could be extended to the other countries and continents for a total population of around 100 billion. Everything between the Arctic and Antarctic circles are potential targets for colonization. This is about 130,000,000 km2 of land area (the circumpolar regions have about 20,000,000 km2 of land).

Another related scam is the idea of carbon credits, which amounts to global taxation.

Industry caught in carbon ‘smokescreen’

Companies and individuals rushing to go green have been spending millions on “carbon credit” projects that yield few if any environmental benefits.

A Financial Times investigation has uncovered widespread failings in the new markets for greenhouse gases, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place.

Others are meanwhile making big profits from carbon trading for very small expenditure and in some cases for clean-ups that they would have made anyway.

The case against carbon trading

You can’t trade in something unless you own it. When governments and companies “trade” in carbon, they establish de facto property rights over the atmosphere; a commonly held global commons. At no point have these atmospheric property rights been discussed or negotiated – their ownership is established by stealth with every carbon trade.

And finally, a nice article about Al Gores’ carbon trading.

Al Gore exposed – buys his carbon offsets from himself

Talk about the biggest fraud in the history of frauds. This guy is good, really good. Not only is he perpetrating a hoax on the world with this global warming stuff, he is a hypocrite who doesn’t practice what he preaches. Not only that and perhaps even more sinister, he is profiting from the hysteria he help create by buying his carbon credits from himself, from his own company.

Just another scam to tax the middle class and the poor, while at the same time depopulating the planet, consolidating power in organisations controlled by these globalists, forcing a global union, a new world order, a global governance, where the sovereignty of individual nations is superseded by the UN and other related groups. It is also a cover to push Communism on the entire human race, using various movements like feminism, socialism, environmentalism etc.

I am not sure what more there is to say about global warming. It seems obvious to me that the UN is speaking out of its arse in regards to this subject. I mean, what a way to make $7 trillion!

The UN’s $7 Trillion Socialist Scam

The United Nations says it can end poverty, stop global warming, and end the threat of contagious disease while also unlocking $7 trillion of hidden wealth from developing nations in the process. If this sounds too good to be true, that’s because it is.

I will provide links to more articles and sites below for further reading. Something to keep in mind is that this is just the tip of the iceberg. Lies and distortion of the truth are being carried out by governments and the media daily. Their goal is to make us believe a version of reality that will suit the elitists. There is plenty on this site and others can be used as a guide to uncovering the truth. Please, don’t allow the propaganda of the TV or spin of politicians to think for you. Think for yourself, and question everything.

I will leave with this piece from the founder of the Weather Channel.

Weather Channel boss calls global warming ‘the greatest scam in history’

The founder of the The Weather Channel in the US has described the concept of global warming as ‘the greatest scam in history’ and accused global media of colluding with ‘environmental extremists’ to alarm the public.

“It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM,” John Coleman wrote in an article published on ICECAP, the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, which is known for challenging widely published theories on global warming.

His original post is here.

“We are moving toward a new world order, the world of communism. We shall never turn off that road.” — Mikhail Gorbachev 1987

“National Socialism will use its own revolution for establishing of a new world order.” — Adolph Hitler during World War II

“Hitler’s dictatorship differed in one fundamental point from all its predecessors in history. It was the first dictatorship in the present period of modern technical development, a dictatorship which made complete use of all technical means for the domination of its own country. Through technical devices like the radio and the loud-speaker, eighty million people were deprived of independent thought. It was thereby possible to subject them to the will of one man…” — Albert Speer, Hitler’s Minister for Armaments (at his trial after World War II

“The world is governed by very different personages from what is imagined by those who are not behind the scenes.” — Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli of England, in 1844

“The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) is the American Branch of a society which originated in England … (and) … believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”— Professor of History Carroll Quigley, Georgetown University, in his book “Tragedy and Hope”.

“We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent.” — Statement made before the United States Senate on Feb. 7, 1950 by James Paul Warburg

These links below will continue to be updated as more information comes to my attention…

Watts Up With That?

SUV’s On Jupiter?

The Global Warming Hoax

Solar Energy

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change

The Creeping Fascism of Global Warming Hysteria

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

The Inconvenient Truth:The Sun Varies in Intensity

Brussels urged to fight climate change with tax

EU global warming crackdown will cost every family £730 a year

Analyzing Global-warming Science

Skeptical Global Warming Scientists To Challenge “Consensus”

Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Should roads have tolls to fight global warming?

Environmentalism: The Religion for an Eco-theocratic Superstate?

Researcher: Basic Greenhouse Equations “Totally Wrong”

Professor: Big Money Behind Global Warming Propaganda

The fact is global warming is waning!

Global Warming in a Climate of Ignorance

World’s Most Powerful Banks Behind Push To Introduce Global Carbon Trading Markets

‘Motorists unfairly hit by £45bn green tax despite more eco-friendly cars’

NASA Chief: Global Warming Treated Like a Religion

Gore’s 10 Errors: Old and New

Evidence of a Significant Solar Imprint in Annual Globally Averaged Temperature Trends – Part 1Part 2

Billionaire environmentalist says world has too many people

OFFICAL: IPCC computer model is WRONG

Over 500 Sign Climate Realist Declaration – ‘Global Warming’ is Not a Global Crisis

New Jason Satellite Indicates 23-Year Global Cooling

APS Editor Reverses Position on Global Warming- cites “Considerable presence” of skeptics

Top Rocket Scientist: No Evidence CO2 Causes Global Warming


*Total solar output per second = 3.86*10e25 J
Total human energy consumption in 2004 = 4.71*10e19 J
(4.71 * 10e19) / (3.86 * 10e25) = 1.22020725*10e-7 seconds or 1.22020725 microseconds. You can reverse this to obtain the number of years 1 second of solar output can provide for the human race.
(3.86 * 10e25) / (4.71 * 10e19) = 819 532.909 years per solar second.

89 thoughts on “Global Warming?

  1. Ed, I got about two paragraphs into your diatribe and just quit reading.

    Nice to see honesty finally rears its head. Deeper than you got on any of my other posts. Admit it — you hadn’t bothered to read anything else, either. Heck, you don’t even read the stuff you cite to support your side of the case.

    Your epithets tell the story, especially without response.

    In the no-doubt-vain hope that you even care about what you claim to care about, you may want to look at this post on custody hearings:
    http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2008/01/new_ruling_on_religion_and_cus.php

  2. Lol! Ed, I got about two paragraphs into your diatribe and just quit reading.

    Thanks for reminding me that arguing with people on the internet is pointless.

    I couldn’t be bothered to argue anymore with a fuckwit like you. I could answer everyone of your little disclaimers, but it seems that no matter what, you still will just say it is all hokus pokus. So why should I bother to write 400 pages of response to explain something to an idiot like you who has no intention of having an open mind about anything? You could, well, look it up yourself. But don’t bother, most people from your generation are closed minded dipshits who think the same Marxist PC Bullshit. Your generation has become the new “establishment” that needs to be torn down. And it will happen. All you have worked to change will be challenged, because your generation was WRONG!

    Why don’t you start googling “Cultural Marxism,” Ed. You know, the transfering of Marxism from Economic in Cultural Terms. If you really knew even the first thing about Marxism, I wouldn’t have to explain. You would just recognize it for what it is.

    I seriously doubt there is anything that you could teach me about Marxism that I don’t already know.

    But, good luck lowering the earth’s temperature by 2 degrees. Lol!

    You have a nice day now.

  3. Ed,

    Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

    “You know who is good at tennis? A brick wall. I played one once. It was, like, relentless.”

    Talking to you is like batting across the top of the Grand Canyon. You lob one in, it sinks, and sinks . . .

    First of all, stop calling everyone a Global Warming “Denialist.” This is patently dishonest of you and is nothing more than using Marxist Politically Correct Techniques to silence all opposition to your position.

    What I’ve said is that one shouldn’t accept arguments from denialists at face value. Are they your arguments? Then shame on you.

    This is the same technique that feminists use to strip away the Constitutional Rights of those ACCUSED of being a rapist.

    Look, I have no idea why you’re affect loaded on rape — but no, I’m not using any “feminist” tactic, and nothing I’ve said accuses anyone of any crime. Get over it. Either you’ve got the facts, or you’ve got along whine about why the gay feminist nazi whale watchers, in league with the communist pro-Zion anti-Zionist UFO abductees, are preventing you from reaching happiness.

    Your happiness, or lack of it, is not my fault. Your arguments can stand or fall on their own accord, without help from feminists, on the basis of the argument itself. The only question is, do you have the data?

    My suggesting that your source is as old as the date you offered is not a “shifty tactic.” If you can’t defend it, don’t be shifty by accusing me of doing something shifty. Admit you can’t defend it and get on.

    I gather you have no more current sources.

    No-one is denying that Global Warming is occurring. That is hardly the crux of the debate. This has been stated over and over again. In fact, it has been REPEATEDLY stated that the earth has gone through MANY periods of Global Warming and Global Cooling throughout its history.

    Yes, there are a lot of people who deny that climate change is occurring, and/or they deny the speed at which it changes, or like your intimation that this is just one cycle in a series, they suggest we need do nothing.

    My point in my immediately preceding post was that we had a consensus once that it’s a bad idea to dump garbage in the air. Along the way to cleaning up the air, this denialist hiccup now claims we don’t need to act. It’s a rather odd philosophy, and I imagine you hadn’t thought it through that far. So no doubt you’re concerned.

    But don’t accuse me of not pointing out the fact. If you want to defend dumping garbage in the air, do it. If you don’t want to defend dumping garbage in the air, quit doing it.

    CO2 fugitive admissions are garbage emissions.

    If you want to make an argument that we can’t afford to clean up, make that argument.

    But please, don’t argue without understanding what it is you’re arguing for, or against.

    No-one denies that glaciers are retreating. Lol! As someone who lived the first three decades of his life in a small town nestled at the foot of a mountain with a once spectacular glacier on it, I am well aware that glaciers are retreating because, unlike you, I have actually watched one retreat first hand.

    You assume too much you don’t know. You don’t have a clue how close I lived to a glacier. This assuming things that are not so is what I’m complaining about.

    If you don’t deny that the glaciers are melting, what do you propose to do about it? If nothing, why?

    Lol! I do throw out that the ocean levels are not rising cataclysmically, as you seem to be inferring. Unlike you, I have given you a hard piece of data to study and examine in the 50cm mean sea level mark made in 1841 in a 1 meter tidal range. You don’t seem to want to discuss this point, but instead you return to hysterics and claiming that all facts from the other side are false, and we are not doing our research.

    Lol! Ed, exactly what facts have you presented?

    Unlike your odd photograph and claims that are not backed by any other site, I pointed you to the 40-year history of the UN’s trying to figure out what to do about Nauru. Sea levels have been rising there constantly (by the way — is that island you noted a volcanic island? Are you sure the island itself is not rising?) Rising sea levels have been problematic in the Netherlands for 200 years. You claim the Dutch are crazy, or what is your claim about why you have only one island that appears, at low tide, not to have much of a problem, when several other nations have severe problems.

    Should we talk about the river deltas in Bengla Desh? Or is that stone carving somewhere in the South Pacific going to hold back the Indian Ocean, too?

    Do you have a response, or do you simply dismiss all arguments contrary to yours?

    Huh?

    That’s a good place to start.

    All that you seem to be doing is throwing out anecdotal “facts” that you have gleaned from… who knows where?

    No, you were the one who posited that a photo at low tide from an obscure island refutes the history of sea level rises in the 20th century. I think you’re unclear on what’s going on.

    I see no links provided by you.

    I’ve not provided many. You’ve not bothered to check out those I have provided. Is “number of links” the sole criterion by which you judge things? Pornography is the salvation of the world by that argument.

    I see no hard facts presented by you. I see screeching and misdirection from you. That is all. I see you continually harping that we are buying into Global Warming Denialist’s tinhat theories, when it has been stated over and over that no-one denies Global Warming is occurring. MAN MADE Global Warming is perhaps being challenged. The severity of Global Warming is perhaps being challenged. The effects of Global Warming will perhaps be challenged. The effectiveness of the Kyoto Accord is definitely being challenged. But, Ed, no-one here denies that Global Warming occurs.

    What’s the point of denying man’s effects on the environment? Among your chief methods of denial was man’s effect on global cooling. Don’t use human effects for your case, but then claim they can’t have the opposite effect.

    If you’re not denying the fact of global warming, stop denying that warming is occurring. That seems awfully basic to me.

    Let me restate that, Ed, so it really registers. NO-ONE IS DENYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING OCCURS.

    Then there should be little kick about doing something about it, if only raising the levees in the Netherlands, London, and New Orleans.

    You’re not there yet. I hear what you say, but I see what you argue. They don’t mesh.

    The only thing you seem capable of arguing is that all those who don’t want to throw away their national sovereignty in the face of Global Warming, are stupidly denying that Global Warming occurs.

    No, I’m also pointing out that international treaties are not “stupidly throwing away their national sovereignty.” Nor is anyone seriously arguing that an international organization should take over management of the world in order to control climate change. In fact, of the taxing schemes you’ve warned us aganst, each of them appears to be totally dead.

    A dead proposal isn’t much of a threat, either. Now, what do you propose to do about the waters rising in Bengla Desh?

    How are you being any different than those who use political correctness to silence those who insist that accused rapists be afforded simple rights until proven guilty, by insinuating that standing up for rights means condoning rape?

    I’ve only suggested that you gather facts. If you feel that my challenge to your assertion is so brutal, it is probably because your assertion is so groundless. There’s no other pressure I have.

    You said that Global Taxation is a big hoax. You were presented with a plethora of evidence to show the contrary. You seem to not want to argue that anymore, although you insisted others were wrong and were not doing research.

    You showed us a Kofi Anan request for funding (which is not a tax, because like the Articles of Confederation, there was no hammer authority). That proposal is dead, Anan has moved on. The article you cited was three years old. That was the most serious chunk you presented. You cited three or four items, none really current, one that directly denied your claim. That’s far from a plethora.

    When I asked for a specific proposal, you demurred. When I pointed out taxing is prevented by the UN Charter, you didn’t respond.

    Your lack of research, your failure to respond, is not a failure on my part.

    I had rather dropped it out of politeness — I had thought you realized your claim was going nowhere.

    But now that you mention it, where is there any evidence of such a proposal — from a non tinfoil hat source? Don’t berate me for noting your claims as tinfoil hattery when you cite tinfoil hat sources.

    You say that Global Governance is a big hoax, yet this site has plenty of evidence to show the contrary.

    I don’t think a few minor incidents are much in the global scheme of things. Your citations ignore the trouble the European Union, the one real regional governance scheme in the works, has in getting anything done. Britain opts out of much of the EEU’s actions. Where the EEU acts to increase local autonomy — quite the opposite of your claim — Britain buys in.

    The UN was organized with fewer than 100 nations. In 1950, there were about 120 nations (I’m estimating). Today there are nearly 200 members of the UN. Quite the opposite of global governance, we’re going the other way worldwide. Remember the Soviet Union? More than a dozen independent nations came out of it (that’s one of our more serious issues). Czechoslovakia broke up. Yugoslavia broke up. Iraq may not be Iraq much longer.

    Do I need to source those for you?

    Where is there a drive to global government? Not in climate. China and the U.S. failed to sign Kyoto.

    So the problems of global warming will not be solved by an international organization, under any scheme, in the near future.

    And you’re arguing that there’s a danger that nations will band together to solve the problem, AND tax for it?

    Is there any serious evidence of nations banding together on the problem? Is there any serious evidence any scheme would require a global tax? I there any serious evidence that a scheme that would require funding could not be funded some other way?

    Since the U.S. is the chief polluter of greenhouse gases (at least until China catches us), shouldn’t we assume that, were there a global tax, our industries would also be the chief beneficiaries?

    So not only is there not serious evidence of global banding together to solve climate issues, there’s no serious suggestion of a tax to pay for it.

    You accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of buying into tinhat theories and not doing their research.

    What research have you done on the issue of Global Governance, Ed?

    Please answer that question, Ed.

    As I noted, I’ve studied global governance rather intensely, with graduate courses in international government, treaties, foreign relations, and global economic history. I worked the policy end of international cooperation in health care for a decade with the U.S. Senate staff, and in education for the U.S. Department of Education. How about you?

    Exactly WHAT research have you done that can prove that a push for Global Governance is not occurring?

    Have you done ANY research on this subject, Ed?

    Then please cite for us some non-tinfoil hat sources that argue it’s a problem, and which spell out what the problems are.

    I don’t think that you have, because there is hardly a person I know, when they delve into the works of Marx, Marxist theorists, Communist Theory and the like, who can deny that something rotten is going on here.

    You are talking to people who have spent YEARS of their own free time studying political theory and Marxist techniques to overthrow sovereign nations and establish International Socialism/Communism (They are all just sitting there, all you have to do is look them up).

    In your years of study, did you ever note that the Soviet Union broke up? 1991. You can look it up. The Berlin Wall came down. India abandoned its drive to Marxism. Pakistan abandoned its drive to Marxism. The Afghanis beat the Soviet Union, which speeded the fall of the USSR. The PRC was forced — by international treaty — to change its laws to be much more favorable to capitalism. And — horror of horrors (to hardline Marxists) — China discovered that capitalism works for them, too. It’s a long, difficult shift from totalitarian communism to economic and political freedom; Russia’s having great difficulty. China is struggling, and there’s a long road to travel yet.

    But Marxism is close to dead. We need to worry about how to keep it down, not how to hold it at bay. It’s a different fight.

    Freedom fights Marxism. Freedom’s defense requires clean air,ideally. Working for clean air is not working for Marxism. Marxism couldn’t produce clean air (see Russia). Capitalism better figure out how to do it, or people will abandon capitalism, too.

    Here, go watch the whole 6 hours. It’s dated, but it will give you a lot of information you need now:
    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/commandingheights/

    Do you know the things that are GLARINGLY absent from all of the Global Warming Alarming arguments, Ed?

    The talk of how to maintain freedom is missing.

    The talk of if a politician effectually signs governing ability over to an outside body, it is by every definition an act of High Treason, is missing.

    Clean air isn’t treason. Good health is not treason. International trade treaties are not treason — they are tools of peace and freedom (did you ever wonder why President Fillmore sent Perry to Japan?).

    I thought we were discussing global warming. It’s not an issue that respects political philosophies.

    And solutions don’t have anything to do with giving in to Marxism, but do have everything to do with freedom of trade and the innovation that can only be done, in human experience, under a capitalist model.

    You should know that, after a decade of study. You must have just forgotten it for a moment.

    The talk of the United Nations, who released the Global Alarming report, having a totalitarian styled, Marxist constitution, is missing.

    That’s right. I don’t buy into unevidence, false, tinfoil hat ideas. The UN, which is considered an echo chamber for the U.S. by most of the world, doesn’t have a Marxist constitution. Read the charter. It was devised by anti-Marxists, and according to the Marxists, it is biased against Marxism. That’s why they refused to participate for 40 years.

    The talk that more and more of the member states of the UN are of far socialist/Communist leaning, and keep voting for Marxist policies to be instituted world wide is missing.

    Well, largely because that’s untrue. Most of the old Eastern Bloc is in the EU — free traders. Poland is fighting a much too-right-leaning government. Islam opposes communism and Marxism on religious grounds. India is going the other way, China is being pulled the other way.

    Who says Marxism is gaining in the UN? On what issue? Where’s the vote? General Assembly or Security Council? What was the Marxist side? How can we tell?

    Like the CEDAW that attaches the “rights of the child” which will virtually undermine all parental authority and hand it over to the state.

    I see 30 articles in the treaty, all demanding rights for women — a key tool for efforts to bring Saudi Arabia into the modern world, a key tool to protect women’s rights in China, lots of guarantees of the rights of both parents — and nothing giving authority to the state. Can you point me to the article that does that?
    http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/text/econvention.htm

    You are goddamn, right, Ed. Many of us are very worried that naturally occurring Global Warming is being purposefully used to set the basis for a Global Government by playing on people’s fears, and demanding the people give up their freedom in order to “save themselves.” Once this government is in place, they will be set up nicely to shove all of their other goddamn filthy Marxist policies down our throats.

    You can’t afford to be fooled by anyone. Check the facts. Where is there any Marxist basis in any of the treaty negotiations? Where is there any call for state parenthood in eliminating discrimination against women?

    And if you can’t find those things in the official documents, in the official histories, why should we be fooled by people who make such false claims?

    We are already practicing the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto all throughout the West. This was Marx’s test to determine whether or not a country was practicing Communism. By Marx’s own definition, we are already there.

    Marx missed the boat. He was right that organizations crush workers. Communism was no better. Economic freedom is.

    Don’t throw out Marx’s good diagnostic tools just to get rid of his sillier solutions, which no one advocates today.

    The Illuminati don’t run everything. They may not run anything.

    Virtually all of the Marxist techniques of population control have already been set in motion in our institutions such as the media, academia & the government.

    Gorbachev now refers to the EU as the European Soviet.

    He doesn’t mean it flatteringly, either. Nor does he seriously propose that EU is the old Soviet Union, or Marxist. It’s totalitarianism he’s railing against, with good cause.

    The ultimate goal of Marxism/Communism is to end all national sovereignty and cease to have borders, while being ruled by a small Global Government of elites. What exactly is being talked about in regard to Global Alarming, Ed? Could it be the need to drop borders and sovereignty to fight this threat?

    Let’s see some Global Warming Alarmists start talking about how to maintain freedom and sovereignty, and you will likely cause 99% of your famed “denialists” to disappear. Do you know what, though? Not a single one of you gives a rat’s ass about freedom. It seems like you all hate it. You are nothing more than a collaborator, all be it, a very dumb one at the bottom of the food chain.

    “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Benjamin Franklin

    Why don’t YOU do some research, Ed? Before we have no countries left at all. All you have to do is “look it up.”

    Stop being a dopey Global Governance Denialist, please.

    I won’t be gullible to tinfoil hat ideas just because you fear Marxist communism, which is dead in most of the world and dying in the rest. If you have a real problem, let’s talk about it.

    But when we ask about protecting a million people in Bengla Desh, you seem to be happy to let them die, if it makes some point against Marxism.

    Maybe I should invest in the tinfoil business. There’s a big market for that stuff, I hear.

  4. There also seems to be this deceptive Politically Corrected consensus out there that all those who speak out about Global Alarming and the ills of ever larger government intrusions into our personal lives, also do not care about the environment.

    What a load of hokus pokus.

    Many of us are very aware of the ills of the environment. Take cancer rates, for example. 100 years ago only 5% of the population could expect to suffer from cancer in their lifetime while today it has risen to 40%. Obviously we are not living well.

    The problem is the Politically Correct Marxists seem to argue that the only way to fight this is to build a BIGGER government.

    The traitorous, leftist, Baby Boomer Generation seems to think that Capitalism is the cause of all the ills in society and that Bigger Government is the solution.

    What a load of horseshit.

    In fact, if the government got smaller, perhaps many of these problems would start to fix themselves.

    If you want to fight Global Warming, Ed, why don’t you advocate for the government to get the hell out of marriage contracts with their “no fault divorce” laws and other incentives for easy divorce.

    Think about that.

    Get rid of easy divorce. It now is over 50% of marriages end in divorce. This means MORE trees being cut down to build more houses. This means more refrigerators, more TV’s, more cars being driven daily, more of, well, everything.

    Drastically cut down on divorce, and you could cut down on the general population’s consumption/pollution rates easily by 20%. Poof! Just like that!

    But, do you think that the leftists will ever advocate for that? HELL NO! Far better to give up national sovereignty and freedom than to give up no-fault divorce!

    The leftists, if they really believed what they are preaching, could also advocate for a stronger middle class – namely by ending their horrendous practice of progressive taxation to redistribute the wealth to fund the Nanny State.

    This would allow us to downsize back to one-income families, which again means, LESS POLLUTION!

    The leftist environmental zealots could also back the fuck off of their land conservationist strategies which have done nothing but drive up the value of land to insane levels, making it virtually impossible for the average person to live in anything but a “box in the sky” apartment in urban areas.

    People who live in urban apartments tend to buy food from grocery stores that in turn support mass industrial agriculture and processed “fake foods.” These types of agricultural processes are the culprits of genetically modified foods, mass pesticides, hormone injections into animals and the like.

    Encouraging lower land values and a stronger, capitalist based middle class, would allow more of us to own a couple of acres of land and grown our own pesticide free vegetables, maybe keep a non-hormone injected cow for milk, and perhaps a few free range chickens for meat and eggs. This would also mean less driving to the grocery store and less “industrial transportation” bringing foods from far away places to market (and perhaps encourage local farmer’s markets), as well as help us produce our own healthy, environmentally friendly foodstuffs – and for dirt cheap!

    While the leftists screech for government to address the problem of obesity in children by creating “government health programs.” You will NEVER see a one of them advocate for the end of the divorce culture which the Baby Boomers created. Nope! They still think that both parents should be working at soul draining jobs, and give their children “cafeteria money” to buy pop & chips for lunch. The solution to this, of course, is more government intrusion to ensure that school cafeterias sell proper food to our children. Heaven forbid that any Leftist Baby Boomer advocate for a traditional family setting, where children are fed healthy home-cooked meals and have two parents standing over them as they make their own “PB & J sandwich with an apple and a thermos of milk” lunch before going to bed the night before. Nope, can’t have that! We can take away freedom and constitutional rights in the name of “The Best Interests of the Child,” but we don’t really mean it THAT much! Better to have fat, slovenly, ill mannered diabetic children than to promote an environmentally friendly “traditional” family! Fucking Hypocrite Baby Boomers!

    Traditional families would also mean better raised children! This in turn would mean that there would be less need for the ever expanding social welfare/abuse system. Do you know what that would mean? That would mean that we would need LESS of those big, polluting government offices that house all of those tax draining Social Workers. That would also mean LESS taxes for the average Joe, which would mean he would have to do LESS work to provide the same amount, which again, would mean LESS pollution! Also, better raised, better fed children, would mean they would spend LESS time in hospitals for asthma and diabetes, which would again mean LESS taxes, again, leading to LESS pollution…

    In fact, let’s encourage home-schooling! Then we can shut down those inefficient schools that cost a bajillion to heat! It would be good for the environment AND better for our children, as it is being shown that home-schooled children of both genders drastically outperform public school children.

    It goes on and on!

    The Capitalist system produces a miracle a minute.

    The Government does nothing but cause problems upon more problems.

    Globaloney Warming Alarmists will NEVER tell you this though. Their only solution is bigger, more intrusive, more totalitarian government. When they start proposing solutions that don’t demand bigger government, then maybe they should be taken seriously. Until then, they deserve nothing more than being discredited for their hypocrisy in creating most of the ills they now wish to build more government offices to solve.

  5. Ed,

    Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.

    First of all, stop calling everyone a Global Warming “Denialist.” This is patently dishonest of you and is nothing more than using Marxist Politically Correct Techniques to silence all opposition to your position.

    This is the same technique that feminists use to strip away the Constitutional Rights of those ACCUSED of being a rapist. They screech that anyone who insists that an ACCUSED rapist should still have the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty or should have the right to question his accuser, is in fact defending the rapist and condoning rape. But, they are not. They are defending Constitutional Rights. Most of people’s rights that have been eroded over the past decades have been precisely because of narrow minded zealots like you using this dishonest technique. The people that read this blog are not stupid. You have walked into exactly THE wrong place to rely on these shifty techniques to win your arguments.

    No-one is denying that Global Warming is occurring. That is hardly the crux of the debate. This has been stated over and over again. In fact, it has been REPEATEDLY stated that the earth has gone through MANY periods of Global Warming and Global Cooling throughout its history.

    No-one denies that glaciers are retreating. Lol! As someone who lived the first three decades of his life in a small town nestled at the foot of a mountain with a once spectacular glacier on it, I am well aware that glaciers are retreating because, unlike you, I have actually watched one retreat first hand.

    Lol! I do throw out that the ocean levels are not rising cataclysmically, as you seem to be inferring. Unlike you, I have given you a hard piece of data to study and examine in the 50cm mean sea level mark made in 1841 in a 1 meter tidal range. You don’t seem to want to discuss this point, but instead you return to hysterics and claiming that all facts from the other side are false, and we are not doing our research.

    Lol! Ed, exactly what facts have you presented?

    Huh?

    All that you seem to be doing is throwing out anecdotal “facts” that you have gleaned from… who knows where? I see no links provided by you. I see no hard facts presented by you. I see screeching and misdirection from you. That is all. I see you continually harping that we are buying into Global Warming Denialist’s tinhat theories, when it has been stated over and over that no-one denies Global Warming is occurring. MAN MADE Global Warming is perhaps being challenged. The severity of Global Warming is perhaps being challenged. The effects of Global Warming will perhaps be challenged. The effectiveness of the Kyoto Accord is definitely being challenged. But, Ed, no-one here denies that Global Warming occurs.

    Let me restate that, Ed, so it really registers. NO-ONE IS DENYING THAT GLOBAL WARMING OCCURS.

    The only thing you seem capable of arguing is that all those who don’t want to throw away their national sovereignty in the face of Global Warming, are stupidly denying that Global Warming occurs. How are you being any different than those who use political correctness to silence those who insist that accused rapists be afforded simple rights until proven guilty, by insinuating that standing up for rights means condoning rape?

    You said that Global Taxation is a big hoax. You were presented with a plethora of evidence to show the contrary. You seem to not want to argue that anymore, although you insisted others were wrong and were not doing research.

    You say that Global Governance is a big hoax, yet this site has plenty of evidence to show the contrary.

    You accuse everyone who doesn’t agree with you of buying into tinhat theories and not doing their research.

    What research have you done on the issue of Global Governance, Ed?

    Please answer that question, Ed.

    Exactly WHAT research have you done that can prove that a push for Global Governance is not occurring?

    Have you done ANY research on this subject, Ed?

    I don’t think that you have, because there is hardly a person I know, when they delve into the works of Marx, Marxist theorists, Communist Theory and the like, who can deny that something rotten is going on here.

    You are talking to people who have spent YEARS of their own free time studying political theory and Marxist techniques to overthrow sovereign nations and establish International Socialism/Communism (They are all just sitting there, all you have to do is look them up).

    Do you know the things that are GLARINGLY absent from all of the Global Warming Alarming arguments, Ed?

    The talk of how to maintain freedom is missing

    The talk of if a politician effectually signs governing ability over to an outside body, it is by every definition an act of High Treason, is missing.

    The talk of the United Nations, who released the Global Alarming report, having a totalitarian styled, Marxist constitution, is missing.

    The talk that more and more of the member states of the UN are of far socialist/Communist leaning, and keep voting for Marxist policies to be instituted world wide is missing. Like the CEDAW that attaches the “rights of the child” which will virtually undermine all parental authority and hand it over to the state.

    You are goddamn, right, Ed. Many of us are very worried that naturally occurring Global Warming is being purposefully used to set the basis for a Global Government by playing on people’s fears, and demanding the people give up their freedom in order to “save themselves.” Once this government is in place, they will be set up nicely to shove all of their other goddamn filthy Marxist policies down our throats.

    We are already practicing the 10 planks of the Communist Manifesto all throughout the West. This was Marx’s test to determine whether or not a country was practicing Communism. By Marx’s own definition, we are already there.

    Virtually all of the Marxist techniques of population control have already been set in motion in our institutions such as the media, academia & the government.

    Gorbachev now refers to the EU as the European Soviet.

    The ultimate goal of Marxism/Communism is to end all national sovereignty and cease to have borders, while being ruled by a small Global Government of elites. What exactly is being talked about in regard to Global Alarming, Ed? Could it be the need to drop borders and sovereignty to fight this threat?

    Let’s see some Global Warming Alarmists start talking about how to maintain freedom and sovereignty, and you will likely cause 99% of your famed “denialists” to disappear. Do you know what, though? Not a single one of you gives a rat’s ass about freedom. It seems like you all hate it. You are nothing more than a collaborator, all be it, a very dumb one at the bottom of the food chain.

    “Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” – Benjamin Franklin

    Why don’t YOU do some research, Ed? Before we have no countries left at all. All you have to do is “look it up.”

    Stop being a dopey Global Governance Denialist, please.

  6. I wonder if someone is going to tell me that it’s bad to cook outside on my grill? Has anyone ever been to Mexico where they have lots of old cars and trucks driving around with smoke pouring out? I wonder if they will get taxed. Look how bad China’s pollution problem is.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/world/asia/26china.html

    It’s not just the US that pollutes. Do you think anyone will be able to force China to be better on pollution? They want to become the next superpower. I don’t think they will be scared by environmentalists. They will keep growing as fast as possible so that they can be the next badass of the world. Bill Clinton gave them a head start by letting them have a lot of our nuclear missile technology. But that’s a totally different subject.

  7. To give a perspective, in the early 1970s, air pollution experts were worried about total load of pollution. As they pointed out — accurately — we were not seeing much other than local toxic effects because, worldwide, particulate pollution and other cooling-effect pollutants were rather balancing out the effects of warming-effect pollutants. However, the models we had in the 1970s suggest that when a tipping point was reached, there would be a spiraling effect either toward warming, or toward cooling. Some scenarios suggested a run-away warming effect that would itself create a tipping the other way to a sudden-onset ice age as the planet responded to correct global disequilibrium.

    What happened? Particulates got controlled, especially from coal-fired power plants, especially from diesel engines in non-point sources. According to the models we had in 1976, that could lead to a tipping of the pollution effect to global warming, which is a short-hand way of saying there is a lot more energy in the atmosphere.

    Over the past decade, we’ve seen dramatic increases in energy in the atmosphere — global “warming.” What are the chief effects? Disruption of weather patterns, more violent storms of all sorts, higher highs certainly, but also much lower lows and much higher snowpack in some places.

    If you’re going to cite this guy saying cooling is a problem, please indicate that he was being wrong about the effects of greenhouse gases, and that he took into account the dramatic reduction in particulate pollutants we effected. I’ll wager he wasn’t working on an assumption that particulate pollution would be so successfully controlled.

    The bottom line is that the scientists in the 1970s who said we need to work against air pollution were correct. Fortunately, we developed the technologies to control particulates very effectively, and that has produced lots of local benefits in public health. We’ve also been effective at reducing individual outputs of sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides. But we have been less successful in controlling simple greenhouse gases and the overall levels of pollution.

    The scientists were right that pollution would eventually become a worldwide problem. Kids in the formerly pristine Pacific Northwest now suffer increased asthma as a result of air pollution from China that drifts across the Pacific.

    We can pretend these problems don’t exist, or we can study them with an eye to figuring out what to do. Our history shows that the “alarmists” have been wonderfully correct in raising our concerns to the point we do something about the problems.

    Climate change denialists, on the other hand, argue we don’t need to do anything. The planet can take care of itself. History shows that is quite wrong.

    I suggest we pay attention to history, and we act to reduce pollution. Dumping garbage into the air is never a good idea.

    Will that stop or slow global warming? Perhaps. Probably. But we do know that dumping garbage into the air always has powerful negative consequences.

    Fewer died than would have had we not controlled some pollutants in the past. That’s good news. It’s not a justification for doing nothing, now. It should be encouragement that we can find solutions to massive problems.

  8. This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976

    A scientist? We don’t know. You don’t say. On what data did he base his conclusion? You don’t say. I’ll wager you don’t know.

    33 years ago? When particulate pollution was much higher and industry promised it would be impossible to impose particulate controls as they had done by 1986?

    When the conditions change that led to a conclusion in 1976, one might expect a change in conslusions, too.

    Got any real data, or just more fog?

  9. BTW, Ed, Is the water level rising just on Nauru? There a a bazillion places that are on the sea. In fact, I live on the Pacific Ocean myself. Why would the sea level rise on Nauru and not in Hawaii, or Easter Island, or Fiji, or Australia, or, in my front yard here in Canada?

    Canada sure isn’t sinking.

    No, the water levels threaten to inundate atolls across the South Pacific (you didn’t bother to look at the data on Kiribati, obviously). We’re actually in a five-year period in which the ocean levels are not rising — but there is no ocean-level expert who predicts that will continue. If you’d been following this issue for any significant length of time, you’d know these issues, I think. Climate change in the Pacific has been a major problem for 40 years.

    And, no, I’m not asking you to take my word for it. Do your own research — but you’re gullibly accepting climate change denialists’ claims without any checking at all.

    Yes, it’s true the snowpack in mid-Antarctica has increased over the past decade. Your guys claim that as evidence there’s no problem. However, you fail to account for the fact that such a snowpack increase is a direct effect of global warming. The ice is not increasing, and the snow pack is higher only because warming carries more moisture off the oceans in the form of snow.

    That’s one of several hundred ice areas on the planet. As of last year, 2 glaciers were experiencing increases or growth, both as a result of lake effects — global warming again. All the others are shrinking. All of them.

    You focus on the two, and claim someone is withholding data.

    I have a cat named Aristotle. Be careful of your conclusions.

  10. It seems with PC UN loving folk, and most environmentalists in general is not that there is global warming, the temperature may be going up, but so what, it either goes up, goes down or is stable for a short while. In the 1970’s the PC screech brigade claimed we were all going to freeze to death in a global cooling.

    This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. — Lowell Ponte “The Cooling”, 1976

    It’s all alarmist bollocks. More importantly for the lovers of global governance and haters of human freedom, these completely normal temperature oscillations must be tied to human existence for them to push the ‘we must control mankind to protect the Earth’ cover story.

    Whether cooling or warming, men or women, CO2 or water vapour, all of these lefty groups all advocate for BIGGER government and LESS individual rights as the solution, which, funnily enough, reflects the viewpoints of your ‘lovely’ friends like Rockefeller, Ed.

    This is just another manipulation of natural events to try and power grab by globalists. There is no conclusive proof whatsoever that humans force Earth’s temperature to rise through CO2. In fact, some research is showing temperatures haven’t changed at all since 2001.

  11. Umm, Ed, did you fail to read the site? Tidal Range is less than a meter, and the mark itself is 50cm across.

    BTW, Ed, Is the water level rising just on Nauru? There a a bazillion places that are on the sea. In fact, I live on the Pacific Ocean myself. Why would the sea level rise on Nauru and not in Hawaii, or Easter Island, or Fiji, or Australia, or, in my front yard here in Canada?

    Canada sure isn’t sinking.

    I think it is you who is not using his noodle.

    What “facts” have you presented here, Ed?

    All I see you do is claim that everyone else is full of shit as you blast them for not looking at the facts. But I haven’t seen you present ONE piece of research or ONE actual piece of factual evidence about any of your claims. We are just supposed to go on your “claims” that all others are not thinking, yet you provide nothing to back yourself up. Lol! Is this the type of people the UN delegates have used over the past 30 years, to decide that Globaloney Warming is man-made?

    You are a typical Politically Correct Leftist who proves things via screeching and insulting language.

    Why don’t you start using YOUR noodle, Ed? Many coral island do sink. If the Pacific Ocean was rising, then shouldn’t Canada be sinking too? If the oceans are rising it would be evidenced EVERYWHERE, not just on a couple of tinpot coral islands that are known for their unstable levels.

    The same thing as your previous claim about freak storms being caused by global warming – like what, Ed? Like hurricanes? Hurricanes are known to work on multi-decade cycles, or did they fail to teach you that in Global Alarming school?

    We are not all dopes, you know. Why don’t you back up all of your claims with something more tangible than shaming language.

    Lol! My money is where my mouth is, bub, as I can see the Pacific Ocean from here. In case you haven’t noticed, that is the same body of water that would have to be rising if your claims about Nauru were correct.

    Where do you live? Iowa? Another Oceanographer from the wheatbelt. Jeesh!

  12. By the way, Ed, as for the swell of the oceans that will wash us all out to sea, check out this site that marked the mean sea-level in the year 1841. Don’t forget now, the industrial revolution swung into full gear after this mark was made.

    Don’t forget, the tides rise and fall twice a day. The photograph was made at low tide. There is no indication that mean sea level has not risen a foot, two-feet, or even more.

    Data are your friend, but you still have to use your noodle to think. A photo at low tide does not change the facts. Look up Nauru. If you’re so cock-sure the oceans are not rising, why not buy land in Nauru, or Kiribati? Put your money where your mouth is.

  13. By the way, Ed, as for the swell of the oceans that will wash us all out to sea, check out this site that marked the mean sea-level in the year 1841. Don’t forget now, the industrial revolution swung into full gear after this mark was made.

    http://www.john-daly.com/

    But, I suppose you will tell me that the Isle of Dead must rising out of the sea… to which I will, of course, reply that Nauru may be sinking, as often happens to coral islands. (That is, after all, how many of those pretty reefs have formed.)

    You know what I am really concerned about though?

    Continental Drift!

    What will happen to future generations when the Americas collide with Asia? DISASTER! Quick, hand me your freedom before the Continental Drift wipes out humanity!

  14. Gee, Ed, exactly what kind of evidence will satisfy you? I fear you are one of the lefty lovin’ Marxists who won’t realize what is happening until you are sent up to an Arctic gulag to witness Global COOLING up close.

    http://craigread.com/displayArticle.aspx?contentID=737&subgroupID=14

    Does it concern you at all that the UN is based on a Marxist model?

    As for your continued disbelief about Global Taxation, LOL! Do you think they will set up an office of Global Taxation? Every agenda they have been promoting since their inception has been done by creating a “sub organizations,” or by enlisting the use of various NGO’s.

    Here is another article that gives details & specifics about the push for global taxation, but I am sure you can refute all of these claims too! How’s the view beneath the sand? (Sorry, this seems to have passed the facts expired date too):

    http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20050601/veon.shtml

    Global tax is no longer an idea –
    It is almost a reality
    By Joan M. Veon

    June 1, 2005

    At the spring meeting of the IMF/World Bank in Washington, D.C., it was announced that a number of countries will be used to test a $1 tax on airline tickets. This global tax idea has been around for the last twenty years, and is now back, as a tax that would be relatively easy to put in place. Furthermore, an “International Financing Facility” for immunization will also be set up, on a test basis. How could we be this far?

    For the last ten years, I have followed the topic of global taxation. My journey began in September 1994, when I discovered the U.N. was going to “float” the idea of global tax at the Social Summit to be held in March 1995, in Copenhagen.

    In 1994, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) called for a “New World Social Charter where the world will redistribute wealth, as it cannot survive, one-quarter rich and three-quarters poor, and where the U.N. must become the principal custodian of global human security, and help with basic education, healthcare, immunization, and family planning.”

    To meet these goals, they put forth the concept of global taxation. Their suggestions included: a tax on the sale of arms weapons, creating a Global Demilitarization Fund, with the savings countries would experience, if they reduced military spending by 3 percent, over a ten year period; a global tax of $1 per barrel on oil consumption; a tax on speculative international currency transactions, that has been dubbed the “Tobin tax;” and a world income tax of 0.1 percent on the richest nations’ with per capita GNP of $10,000. To help reduce the debt of the poorest countries of the world, a number of debt-restructuring recommendations were made, including debt cancellation.

    At the Social Summit, the U.N. held a one day pre-conference press briefing. The first panel consisted of a number of U.N. officials, which included Dr. Inge Kaul, co-author of the Human Development Report. The purpose of the panel was to float, for the first time, at a U.N. conference, the idea of global taxation. I was able to ask Dr. Kaul why the countries of the world should provide the U.N. with $350 billion in monies from the various global taxes they had put forth in the 1994 Human Development Report, when the U.N. budget for 1993 was a little over $10 billion? After seven minutes of trying to provide some kind of rational answer, she said:

    “I would hope that it would come to the U.N. … somehow, the money has slipped away from us. I think it would be only logical … and it is logical, that the money comes back to the U.N.”

    Between 1995 and 2000, I occasionally heard about the need to find an independent stream of monies for the U.N., so they would not be dependent on member country dues. Nothing of importance was put forth, until the United Nations Millennium Summit in 2000. The main conference document outlined a number of empowerments for the U.N. Interestingly, it only had one sentence with regard to additional monies for the U.N.: “To ensure that the Organization is provided on a timely and predictable basis with the resources it needs to carry out its mandates.”

    The U.N. also put forth their goals for the people of the world for the third millennium. Known as the Millennium Development Goals (MDG), they include:

    cutting in half the number of people living in extreme poverty, those who are hungry, and those who lack access to safe drinking water;

    to achieve universal primary education and gender equality in education;

    to accomplish a three-fourths decline in maternal mortality and a two-thirds decline in mortality among children under five;

    to halt and reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS and provide special assistance to AIDS orphans;

    and to improve the lives of 100 million slum-dwellers by 2015.

    The estimated yearly cost in 2000 was $50 billion.

    In December of that year, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed Dr. Ernesto Zedillo, former president of Mexico, to head a panel that would advise him on ways to find monies to help finance the Millennium Development Goals. Former U.S. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin served on this panel. Their recommendations included:

    increase private capital flows, called Foreign Direct Investment (FDI);

    implementing the World Trade Organization Uruguay Round, that calls for liberalization of market access for agricultural products of third world countries;

    the elimination of export subsidies and the elimination of remaining trade barriers in manufacturing;

    increasing Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) to 0.7 percent for all developed countries;

    a number of global taxes, such as the Tobin tax;

    and a tax on the consumption of fossil fuels, getting every developing country to get their economic house in order, and setting up a common-pool that would finance a country’s promise to meet their commitment to increase their ODA to 0.7 percent.

    At the 2001 Group of Eight heads of state meeting in Genoa, the protestors, who only show up when needed, showed up. While the violence was reported, including the killing of one protestor by an Italian policeman, no one reported what they demanded: global taxation to help reduce the poverty of the world.

    In 2002, the U.N. held a conference specifically to find an income stream. Called “Financing for Development,” this meeting was unique, in that it held a number of Ministerial Round Table discussions, in which governments, U.N. agencies and commissions, non-governmental organizations, business groups, such as the International Chamber of Commerce, the World Economic Forum, and churches, took part. Basically, the heads of state adopted all of the Zedillo recommendations reflected in the Financing for Development document. The U.S. announced that we would increase our Overseas Development Assistance by 50 percent over three years, by $5 billion. and that it would double in the future, from its present rate of 0.2 percent of GNP. The next time global taxation surfaced was at the Spring 2004 IMF/World Bank meeting in the Development Committee meeting, which is comprised of the IMF/World Bank heads. The Committee members were unwilling, at that time, to answer a question I raised about global taxation, calling it a “very complex topic,” and that the Committee would hold additional discussions on it.

    It was French President Jacques Chirac who put global taxation on the agenda of the Group of Eight in Sea Island, Georgia, in 2004. Global tax had evolved, over a ten year period, from a concept for discussion to a major necessity, and was now on the table of one of the most powerful meetings of the world. President Chirac called the old ideas for global taxation inequitable, and was working with British Prime Minister Tony Blair. They would make their recommendations later in the year. He did just that, at the 2005 World Economic Forum, where he offered some old, new, and revised ideas.

    The recommendations from the Chirac/Blair panel included increasing ODA to 0.7 percent GNP; setting up the International Finance Facility that will float bonds in the international markets, based on the commitments of developed countries to increase their ODA (this means another layer of debt around the neck of taxpayers, as we would also incur interest on the bonds that would be paid to bondholders); encourage wealthy countries to set up coordinated tax incentives to stimulate and encourage private donations; a small Tobin tax on international financial transactions; and a small tax of $1 on the 3 billion airplane tickets sold each year, worldwide, along with a tax on fuel used by air and/or sea transport. It should be noted that some of these were recommended by the Zedillo high level panel, as well as the 1994 Human Development Report.

    At the most recent IMF/World Bank meeting in mid-April, the theme of the meeting was how to fund the U.N. Millennium Development Goals through global taxation and debt relief for the Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC). Interestingly, at the 1998 G7 heads of state meeting in Birmingham, England, about 50,000 non-governmental organizations and churches held peaceful demonstrations under the Jubilee 2000 Coalition, to grant debt relief for the HIPCs. The Development Committee had spent the last year working on global taxation, and they offered a 27 page report on Moving Forward: Financing Modalities Toward the MDGs that reviewed all of the various global tax recommendations.

    With regard to debt relief, the HIPC countries owe a total of $54.5B to a host of creditors, including banks, the Paris Club, bilateral creditors, the World Bank, the IMF, and several others. The G7 Finance Ministers discussed debt relief, which would include forgiving 100 percent of the debt of some of the poorest countries, while forgiving other countries the interest on their debt. When I asked outgoing World Bank President Jim Wolfensohn if these countries would have to enter into debt-for-equity swaps (where a poor country signs over their forests, agricultural lands, or other assets, equal to the amount forgiven), he did not respond.

    With regard to global tax recommendations that are on the table for serious consideration, the greatest money makers are the Global Carbon Tax and the Tobin tax, followed by the international aviation fuel. A general financial transaction tax was rated as having a high income stream. Those easiest to collect would be the global carbon tax, the international aviation fuel, the maritime pollution tax, a tax on arms sales, and a tax on the global commons.

    It was announced that a $1 tax on airline tickets is going to be tested on a group of countries, once their parliaments agree, with the idea that if it works, it will go global. It was also announced that the technical aspects of the International Financing Facility proposal are being worked through, in a pilot program for immunization sponsored by the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization (GAVI), a public-private partnership between governments in developing and industrialized countries; NGOs, UNICEF, WHO, emerging vaccine manufacturers, and the World Bank, to name a few of the partners.

    Now that global taxation is almost a reality, it is only a matter of time, before we are hit with a number of other global taxes, depending on what our governments agree to. Furthermore, the citizens of the developed countries are currently paying a type of global tax through the Overseas Development Assistance. We, the American people, are giving $17 billion of our tax dollars for ODA, which is 0.25 percent of GNP. We are told this is not enough. Apparently, the U.S. has agreed to much more. If we were to give the 0.7 percent GNP, it would require another $50 billion of our tax dollars. In addition, we are agreeing to third world debt forgiveness, and the Millennium Development Goals.

    Just how much is needed? Currently, the HIPC countries owe $54.5 billion. The cost of meeting the MDGs was $50 billion in 2000, and will go up to $66 billion in 2006. They say we need to meet these needs by 2015. At that time, the yearly amount will inflate to $126 billion per year. When I asked World Bank Senior Vice President for Development Economics, Mr. Francois Bourguignon, how much was too much, he told me that since the developed countries are not giving at the 0.7 percent ODA, the other global taxes are needed, in order to meet the MDGs. Furthermore, with the change in the value of various currencies and the rise in gas prices, they would need more. Lastly, it is doubtful that the 30-plus countries of the Sub-Sahara would meet their MDGs. The bottom line: more will always be needed. We will never be able to give enough. If, and when, the International Financing Facility is up and running, who knows the amount, the number of bonds, the interest rates, or the length of bonds that you and I will be responsible for, that will create another level of debt, in addition to global taxation, and an increase in ODA.

    In conclusion, a global tax would not be possible, if the barriers between the nation-states had not been dismantled. The economic barriers fell, with the creation of the IMF/World Bank in 1944; the political barriers fell with the creation of the United Nations; the trade barriers fell, with the creation of the World Trade Organization; and the legal barriers fell, with the creation of the International Criminal Court. These ideas will be on the table at the G8 in June, and at the U.N. in September. Has the U.N. found a way to justify their existence? Yes. Can Dr. Kaul feel gratified that she has done her job well? Yes. Will the people of the world ever recover? No.

  15. It doesn’t matter that it comes from 2004 if one is reckless in one’s claims about what is about to happen. The claim was that it was a proposal before the UN — but it never was a proposal for a world tax, and the events had come and gone, without anything resembling such a proposal being made. Interesting history, but absolutely zero support for the claim made, which was that the UN is looking for ways to tax people. That claim is still unsupported, and still untrue.

    How reckless do you want us to think you are with facts generally?

    Did you read the news story? I don’t see that you’ve incorporated anything it reveals into your thoughts.

    1. Chirac is no longer president of France, nor is he leading any effort to tax any foreign governments.

    2. There is no UN proposal on the table. The article notes discussion in Europe, but of course, Europeans are already bound into the European Union. The U.S. is not a member.

    3. Comments from the Russian diplomat underscore that there is no proposal in the UN, and underscore the fact that the proposals discussed at that time in Europe were not proposals under the UN. Nothing else has been proposed since then in any formal fashion.

    4. Discussions then were underway for the next step in a treaty to follow on the Kyoto Treaty. That’s not UN, there’s no proposal for an international tax, the U.S. is not threatened at all by it. Those discussions, carried on most recently in Bali, steer far away from an international tax, and in fact steer away from any proposal that in any way resembles your fears for an international tax.

    Meanwhile, the sea levels continue to rise and wipe out Nauru. Every glacier on Earth continues to melt but two odd ones benefiting from lake-effect snows (caused by warming). Wildlife continues to be disrupted, droughts and freak storms caused by global warming continue to kill.

    Do you have a fiddle to play? Is it a Nero brand fiddle?

    You may want to read the UN Charter and pay attention — I took the obligatory courses in UN and international law and am in irregular contact with various UN diplomats I’ve worked with over the past 30 years. Your views bear no resemblance to reality at the UN or anywhere else in any other international organization.

    The UN Charter prohibits a taxing power. No UN entity proposes to change it. There is no such proposal in front of any other body. So the claim that someone is pushing the proposal is completely fabricated, with no evidence to support it for any rational person.

  16. Gee, Ed, does it matter that the article comes from 2004? Does it automatically become factually inaccurate because of an expiry date or something? Kofi Anan or whoever is Secretary General is of very little significance, lol! Perhaps you should study the UN a little better if you think that that the Secretary General holds the power.

    Perhaps you should read what was released in the press immediately after the UN released its sham results and the global media started hammering out their hyped up scare tactics to the world:

    http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070203/climate_folo_070203/20070203?hub=TopStories

    Updated Sat. Feb. 3 2007 11:31 PM ET
    .
    Associated Press
    .
    PARIS — Fear of runaway global warming pushed 46 countries to line up Saturday behind France’s bid for A NEW ENVIRONMENTAL BODY THAT COULD SINGLE OUT – AND PERHAPS POLICE – nations that abuse the Earth.
    .
    “It is our responsibility. The future of humanity demands it,” President Jacques Chirac said in an appeal to put the environment at the top of the world’s agenda.
    .
    He spoke at a conference a day after the release in Paris of a grim landmark report from the world’s leading climate scientists and government officials that said global warming is so severe that it will “continue for centuries” and that humans are to blame.
    .
    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s report sparked calls for fast, planet-wide action. But not everyone at Chirac’s conference welcomed the idea of a body that would define and possibly enforce environmental rules.
    .
    Key world polluters – including the United States, China, India and Russia – steered clear, while Europeans embraced it. A total of 46 countries agreed to pursue plans for the new organization, and to hold their first meeting in Morocco this spring.
    .
    Without naming the United States directly, Chirac expressed frustration that “some large countries, large rich countries, still must be convinced.” They are “refusing to accept the consequences of their acts,” he said.
    .
    Chirac, 74, is seeking to leave his mark on international affairs before he leaves office, likely in May. He has long expressed concern about environmental affairs, though his environmental record over 12 years as France’s president is spotty.
    .
    Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore, whose documentary on the perils of global warming has garnered worldwide attention, cheered Chirac’s efforts.
    .
    “We are at a tipping point,” Gore said in recorded remarks shown at the conference. Friday’s report was “yet another warning about the dangers we face. We must act, and act swiftly. … Such action requires international co-operation. ”
    .
    Many questions remain about the proposed environment body, including whether it would have the power to ENFORCE global climate accords.
    .
    Chirac’s appeal says only that the body should “evaluate ecological damage” and “support the implementation of environmental decisions.”
    .
    Many countries have failed to meet targets for cutting greenhouse gas emissions laid out in the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. The United States never ratified the pact.
    .
    In an interview published earlier this week, Chirac warned that the United States could face a CARBON TAX on its exports if it does not sign global climate accords.
    .
    “We have 700 multilateral environmental agreements, and none of them seem to work. Environmental institutions are extremely weak,” said Cristian Maquieira, a Chilean government environment official.
    .
    Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov said that creating a new environment organization would require too much time and money. Instead, he urged reforming the existing U.N. Environment Program AND EXPANDING ITS POWERS.
    .
    He praised Chirac’s efforts, however, as a “strong chess move” in the campaign to draw attention to the environment.
    .
    SEVERAL PARTICIPANTS CALLED FOR TAXING ACTIONS THAT HURT THE ENVIRONMENT, or labelling products according to how ecologically clean they are.
    .
    U.S. economist Jeremy Rifkin urged governments, businesses and activists to work together to create a “post-carbon” era.
    .
    “CLIMATE CHANGE IS GOING TO BE MORE RESPONSIBLE FOR BRINGING ABOUT A BORDERLESS WORLD THAN FREE TRADE,” Rifkin said.
    .
    The CEO of French energy and water giant Suez, Gerard Mestrallet, said, “businesses share the conviction that there is an urgent need to act.”
    .
    Some 200 scientists, government officials, industry officials and environmental activists from more than 60 countries joined the conference.

  17. Gee, Barker, that’s fascinating. Tammy Bruce, deft with the put down, is much less dextrous in getting the facts. Tax proposal? Not in anything she quotes, not in anything she cites. She’s imagining it.

    Taxing is prohibited by the UN Charter. No one proposes to change the Charter. How would such a tax be done?

    It couldn’t. But saying someone proposes it is a good way to stampede all the unthinking gullibles who think government grows on trees. Certainly you are not in that category, are you?

    The other article, from CFIF, is a real hooter. How did you fail to note that the date was 2004? Kofi Anan has been gone from the UN for over a year . . . plus the article includes that grand hoax of the internet, the e-mail tax. You didn’t know your leg was being pulled?

    We have real serious issues on this planet. I wish you’d get educated about them, worry about them, and work for change. You’re wasting your time and mine chasing down internet hoaxes and hoodoos.

    Shame on you.

  18. There are not just a few Scientists who disagree that man is causing global warming, there are many. See below link.

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

    And it sounds to me like the UN IS concidering taxing countries to fight global warming. see below links.

    http://tammybruce.com/2007/02/global_warmingglobal_tax.php

    http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm

  19. Surely you need to acept more than just the tipping of the scale of justice. If for example it the was a 10% chance of the earth being hit by a large meteor over say the next 50 year, would not you support efforts to deflect it.

    Here is a solution that should appeal to free market conservatives.

    This is the most transparent, most efficient, and least expensive way to get to sustainable energy and end energy imports and global warming; guaranteed!

    The Free Market Solution Part 1
    This is about using the power of the free market to provide to solution to oil imports and global warming.

    The next president should appoint a commission, of wise people, with no significant financial interests in energy, to come up with the most effective and least costly means to reduce greenhouse gases.

    This is what they would come up with:
    An assessment against fossil carbon release and then returned equally to all tax filers.
    Here’s why:

    1.It avoids a tax that to many people means wasteful spending.
    A carbon tax would do many of the same things an assessment would do, but would not
    be as efficient (motivate) and certainly would not be popular.
    2. A carbon tax is regressive, since low income people spend a greater portion of their
    income for energy.
    A carbon tax would be especially unfair and unpopular with lower income people.
    3. An assessment does not make reduction of energy use mandatory.
    Free choice is always desirable and would motivate more people. Those who chose
    not to participate can feel free not to as they will be paying others to reduce their
    use and will pay for renewable fuel development.
    4. As non-fossil energy comes on line, the assessment becomes less until it disappears.
    An assessment is temporary and disappears as fossil carbon emissions drop.
    5. It would be inexpensive to collect, since it would involve the few oil or coal companies
    and they already collect the necessary information.
    6. It would cost very little to pay back, since a tax filing system is already in place.
    7. An assessment would be fair, if the assumption is made, that all people are born equal and
    have an equal stake or equal rights to a clean environment.
    8. Most important, an assessment would allow free market principles to work.
    Why would anyone think congress would make the best decisions on what energies to
    support with grants, subsidies, tax breaks or mandates. The reason an assessment
    would work is the complete transparency and everyone can choose whether to be
    involved and those risking their investment money will make more knowledgeable
    decisions than congress.
    Go to http://www.greengenes.info for parts 2 -6

  20. Pingback: Global Warming 2 « End of Men

  21. Ed, that’s what makes these issues so complex. I may agree with various groups on specifics, but it doesn’t mean I’ll endorse the group because of it.

    Those views about Africans is shared by other population control advocates like Margaret Sanger. There’s an interesting document on her called ‘The Negro Project’ I believe. It’s been a while since I read it.

    And I’ll have to agree to disagree on your opinions of global governance. There is plenty of accounts, quotes from globalists, etc that indicate beyond coincidental probability that there is a plan afoot. There has been for decades. The United Nations is the fulcrum. Maybe I’ll write an article on it in due course, I can’t concentrate well at the moment. I do however, have another piece I’m about to publicise about global warming. 🙂

  22. You’re right, everything needs to be brought up these days, including children, information, and IQ levels.

    Did you read Furedi’s column? He cites Californians for Population Stabilization. Then he goes off on a tangent about how they might advocate nasty policies against people, and he trails off in some bizarre rant about birth control availability in Africa (apparently he doesn’t think Africans should have the chance to plan their families; I’m not sure he’s conscious of the racist element in his argument).

    Californians for Population Stabilization is an anti-immigration group. They’re conservative-to-libertarian. They’re on your side.

    You didn’t notice that?

  23. I don’t challenge your right to think about whatever you choose, nor to believe any fool idea you wish to.

    I challenge your assertion that there is a threat of global taxation by any body. Not there.

    Get your facts straight first, then distort ’em as you wish, Twain is accused of saying. You’ll like it better that way. Get the facts first.

    The facts are, there’s no movement to global government, no movement to global taxation. Even the EU can’t get into England’s knickers.

  24. Let me get this straight. I concern myself with whatever I choose.

    There have been plenty of attempts to instigate global taxation on energy consumption and yes it keeps getting shot down. I’m not going to forget about it because someone commenting on MY blog believes they can preach to me what I should and shouldn’t be thinking about.

    I’m not going to rely on other people to think for me.

    And stop being so basic. It would never be called a global tax. It would be taxes in increments passed down by governments, influenced by such global policy makers like The Bilderburg Group. This would occur with airlines, ships etc which would then be passed down to the public. As always.

    There are plenty of groups trying to use carbon emissions to force some form of population control or another. Try searching ‘population control global warming’.

    Population control.

    That’s the last link I’m going to bother posting, do you own research.

    The $4000 bonus is to encourage families to grow due to the decimation of families through other Marxist ideologies like feminism – And of course people would approve of being given money. The reason why feminism got so big is because people ignored it because they thought it would’t amount to anything.

    The rest of the article is about various groups agreeing with that idiot doctor, apart from the last sentence.

    Everything needs to be brought up these days. I choose to bring up whatever I like on this blog. If you don’t like, go elsewhere. I refuse to be dictated to by anyone, least of all random nobodies on the internet.

  25. Let me get this straight: You agree that nobody likes taxes. You agree there is no powerful group behind a global tax. I note there are no proposals for a global tax, and you don’t point to any.

    Australia has a $4,000 incentive for couples to have babies, indicating wide approval of the idea, and disapproval of global taxes and taxes on having babies — in effect, showing the sparse support for global taxes on anything.

    Some wise guy says “tax babies.” He is pilloried by his colleagues and by Australians, who all agree it’s a bad idea.

    Just because everyone on Earth but this one guy is opposed to it, however, doesn’t suggest to you that this guy doesn’t have a lot of support?

    I suppose you’re worried about the movement to get people to stop breathing to reduce CO2, also?

    You say you can “see their agenda a mile off.” Newsflash: So does everybody else.

    Worry about something that poses a greater danger to you. Are you adequately protected against falling satellites?

  26. Taxes aren’t favoured by anybody. The difference between business people and the end consumer, is that businesses can 1. absorb tax costs through product pricing and 2. exploit loopholes (such as private equity firms are so good at), the consumer has to pay. Most increases in business costs end up being paid by the customer anyway, on top of all of the other taxes we pay.

    In regards to using the mythical threat of carbon footprints to regulate population, I’m seeing hints left in the media all the time. A subtle way of saying ‘babies are destroying Gaia’ and all that other environmentalist eugenics nonsense. Tax babies ‘to save planet’ is the latest I’ve seen.

    This hysteria is not taking off the way its organisers would like. There has been a backlash, so they are forced to change their tactics and wrap up their agenda’s with semantics and fear-mongering.

    I can see their agenda a mile off. Whether you choose to look into my claims or not, is up to you. This information is out there for people to make up their own minds.

  27. I find people accuse me of making ad hominem arguments, when I have not, when they are already way out of their depth.

    There is no group in favor of global taxation, in any serious fashion. There is no constituency for it. It’s against the UN Charter, and against the charter of almost all other multi-lateral international organizations. The European Union struggles as does the U.S. with trying to hold taxes down.

    Powers that could advocate for global programs like global taxation are all opposed to taxes, period.

    That’s why it’s a tinfoil hat kind of argument (please note that my characterizing the argument is not “ad hominem,” since the argument is not a person — please get it right this time). The argument makes no sense on its face.

    Rich guys and big businesses don’t like any taxes. Those are the people who would need to run a movement toward global taxation.

    Have you ever studied economics? Taxes are not favored by most business people.

  28. My entire article was about the use of man-made CO2 as a method of creating 1) global taxation, 2) birth control 3) global resource management.

    Two tinfoil hat argumnets in pursuit of a two more?

  29. Ed, no one has ever disagreed with the fact that the Earth is warming, so it goes to show that your presumptions of the people here keep filling your brain whenever your constructing a comment.

    The UN isn’t promoted as a governing body of the world in any treaty — the UN Charter specifically forbids that, by the way. That’s why the treaties are necessary, and why the General Assembly or Security Council don’t just legislate the change.

    Yeah, and the US government couldn’t decide to the the ‘world police’ until 9/11, even with the Constitution not allowing it. They did it anyway.

    The Charter is just a goddam piece of paper! And it is far from perfect. United Nations – Human Rights Scam

    Fuck the UN.

    My entire article was about the use of man-made CO2 as a method of creating 1) global taxation, 2) birth control 3) global resource management.

    This is a natural cycle the whole solar system is going through. The temperatures are not going to rise to catastrophic levels, people don’t need to stop having babies to think about their fucking ‘carbon footprint’, governments don’t need to ‘regulate’ society even more. It’s all hysteria, just like the global cooling fad of recent history.

    I agree, people who are at risk of flooding or extreme weather should be protected, but not because of global warming, they should have been protected anyway.

    The tin foil hat ad hominem is getting boring by the way, and maybe, next time you leave a comment, read the article again. You have your own issues that you are projecting onto my article in an attempt to obfuscate the source of your beliefs.

    The last line of your comment is this:
    No? Then it’s time to start thinking, and knock off the denial of the warming.

    The first line of my article is this:
    Firstly, I do not disagree that the Earth’s temperature is rising. I do disagree that it is being caused by carbon dioxide emissions created by humans.

    If you can’t keep up, get off the train.

  30. All I suggested is that you shouldn’t use tinfoil hat-created arguments.

    For example, the claim that fluctuations in the Sun’s output dramatically affects weather on Earth — um, have you noticed dramatic changes on Earth attributed to these fluctuations at any time in the last 40 years? No. Why? Because that’s not the way it works. The infrared and ultraviolet energy from the Sun remain constant enough that there is almost no fluctuation, and changes in other forms of energy don’t affect temperature.

    I notice Hairy Barker claims I insult, when I actually railed at the argument. I notice Hairy Barker has no answer other than to complain that I insult, when I don’t (unless, of course, you confess to being a tinfoil hat kinda guy . . . in which case, I guess you knew you had it coming).

    Water vapor is indeed the greatest greenhouse gas. Have you noticed that fluctuations in water vapor are mediated by oceans, and so do not vary that much, year to year?

    We haven’t gotten to global dimming yet. No, that’s not an insult, Hairy Barker, unless one wishes to step up to claim to being globally dim.

    The UN isn’t promoted as a governing body of the world in any treaty — the UN Charter specifically forbids that, by the way. That’s why the treaties are necessary, and why the General Assembly or Security Council don’t just legislate the change.

    But if you want to make a tinfoil hat argument about the UN, I suppose it’s no wonder you buy the tinfoil hat arguments about climate, too.

    There’s a pending article in Skeptic that sincerely and severely questions the links between CO2 and global warming — but of course, it doesn’t deny the warming.

    The point isn’t to complain about industry or CO2, but instead to get action to prevent damage from the effects of the warming. It may be that, whether human-released CO2 is the culprit or not, we can’t do anything significant about it by reducing CO2. In that case, we need levees, houses on stilts, floodgates at the mouths of rivers, and massive technology assistance to move people or protect people in flood plains, and to change crops to keep people fed despite the climate changes that will wipe out some current farming practices and production.

    But, with a tinfoil hat on, maybe you can be protected from malnutrition, starvation, and flooding. Maybe the hat will make a good boat. Got a study that shows that?

    No? Then it’s time to start thinking, and knock off the denial of the warming.

  31. I noticed that Ed likes to insult people he doesn’t agree with. Sorry Ed, but there are a lot of us free thinkers in the world who don’t just go along with what everyone else says. The biggest greanhouse gas of all is water vapor. Let me guess, your going to say something about tinfoil hat again?

  32. The sun outputs so much energy in various forms, that even the slightest change will affect the solar system. That is basic thermodynamics.

    This is about promoting the UN as THE global governing body. This is about one world governance.

    This is communism.

    By the way, why should anyone here speed so much time and effort indulging ideas for solving the worlds major problems? The goal isn’t solving the worlds problems, unless you consider sovereignty of nations, freedom and population as problems.

    Those in power have an agenda. Promote a global problem, propose given the UN more powers as the solution. Promote another problem, rinse and repeat.

    Read this:

    Global Governance

  33. Money would be better spent elsewhere.

    Great, then spend it there. Certainly something should be done to prevent the drowning of several millions of people in Bengla Desh.

    But you’re not proposing to spend the money to do anything better. We’re all ears, if you really are serious. Lay out your plans.

  34. As the Sun ages (millions to billions of year scale) it will get larger and appear hotter. There is nothing that humans can do about this to bring about any change.

    Boy howdy, when you guys get desperate, you really pull out the tinfoil hat stuff!

    Yes, in a few billion years the Sun will get larger and appear hotter on its way to its own stellar death. Not this year, not next year, not in your lifetime. This has zero effect on warming of our planet now.

  35. How can you require action about global warming when you have no possible control over the either the outcome or the thing that is causing the change.

    Good luck trying to reduce the output of the sun.

    As the Sun ages (millions to billions of year scale) it will get larger and appear hotter. There is nothing that humans can do about this to bring about any change.

    The best humans can do is not physically pollute the eart as in water etc or actual dangerous chemicals.

    Reducing CO2 emissions is silly because a good volcanic explosion (we are on an active planet you know) will marginalize DECADES worth of reduced carbon emissions. And at what cost?

    Money would be better spent elsewhere.

    Reducing CO2 emissions is like trying to use a bandaid to patch up a massive gash. Sure you may reduce some of the blood loss but that is no way to control the problem

  36. Exactly. Cui Bono.

    This is ultimate communism. Governments using destructive social policies and dialectics to convince their serfs to relinquish all of their rights to the government (with the promise to tackle the ‘problems’), the UN and larger blanket organisations create the global scams to convince the governments to relinquish their rights (with the promise to tackle the ‘problems’)…

    It’s amazing that people still actually believe that communism is a good thing. But then again, people will believe whatever they’re told to believe these days, why think when one can flick.

    A good introduction to the United Nations can be read here:

    Global Governance

    “Further global progress is now possible only through a quest for universal consensus in the movement towards a new world order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev, before the UN, December 7, 1988

    Indeed, Rob himself has done a tremendous job of unravelling Marxism, communism, political correctness and their associated evils, visit his site here:

    http://no-maam.blogspot.com/

  37. “The threat of environmental crisis will be the ‘international disaster key’ that will unlock the New World Order.” — Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in “A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind”, by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5

    “Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of ’emergency’. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And ’emergency’ became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains.” — Herbert Hoover

    The whole Global Warming Hype being released by the United Nations should make it suspect unto itself. They have something called “motive.”

    First off, the United Nations is clearly a Communist Organization, as can be seen by how they view rights as given to people by the state (and can thusly also take them away – statements like this are the cornerstone of all totalitarian regimes):

    “The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, in the enjoyment of those rights PROVIDED BY THE STATE … the State may subject such rights only to such limitations as are determined by law.” — Article Four of the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

    ***compared to:

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain UNALIENABLE Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men…” — United States Declaration of Independence

    The United Nations is a completely corrupt organization that has been spending DECADES trying to establish the right to tax – because, the right to tax is also the right to govern – and these assholes do not want to tax just a little bit, but they want to tax to the tune of TRILLIONS – to have a budget bigger than that of the USA.

    http://www.eco.freedom.org/el/20050601/veon.shtml

    http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/un_monitor/in_our_opinion/global_taxes.htm

    The United Nations has been pushing punitive taxation against “offending nations” right from the very beginning, and openly admits that it will be used to redistribute the wealth from the richer nations to the poorer nations – how Communist, eh?

    Btw, the United Nations does not get “voted” into power. Basically they are advocating for taxation without representation, aren’t they?

    Keep in mind that the United Nations has also been desperate to establish their own military force, independent of other nations – yes, wouldn’t that be interesting, for the Marxist bastards to be able to tax the world to the tune of trillions, and be able to fund their own military “peace keeping force” with that money.

    This is the real goal behind Global Warming, and anyone who doesn’t see it is a fool. The people who stand to benefit THE MOST from Global Warming are the very people who have released the report in the first place.

    Anyone with half a brain would have to call this “suspect,” wouldn’t you say?

    Also, it advocates for treaties, which because of the United Nations system of world courts, supercede the Constitutions of signing Nations – as in, just as with the EU, all treaties signed by countries are viewed globally as more legally binding than that country’s constitution itself. This is how most of our freedoms are set to be stripped from us in the future. It is already happening in Europe where the UN’s little brother, the EU, has recently passed a law (Article 191 I believe), stating that it is now illegal for a national political party to oppose its membership in the EU. Can you smell the totalitarianism in that? When will Europe learn?

    Hillary Clinton won’t have to fight the US Constitution to destroy America, all she has to do is sign the USA into all of the UN’s proposed Communist treaties, and she will effectively have superceded the US Constitution.

    It is interesting to note that there is NOT ONE National Constitution in the world that permits that country’s leaders to hand over it’s sovereign authority to an outside governing body – because, um, that would be treason!

    The whole debate about CO2 and whatnot is really a red-herring, because even most scientists admit that our knowledge on the subject is very limited.

    The real danger here is the constant trumpeting of the need to set up a global body (the UN) to tackle this problem, and their desire to do it through punitive taxation, which will establish them as a legitimate world governing body.

    The people who stand to benefit the most are the ones who sponsored the studies, wrote the report, released it to the world, and offer insane solutions which are based upon nations handing over their wealth to the United Nations, for them to do with said wealth as they see fit – an unelected body, with a totalitarian constitution, who has been desperate for this kind of thing for decades, and, in fact, has tried this before.

    Follow the money.

  38. The number of scientists rejecting the mainstream story is huge and growing all of the time. Here are some more crazy tin foil hat theories!!!

    The UN’s IPCC Global-Warming Bunko Scam
    UN Climate Panel Accused of Possible Research Fraud
    The UN IPCC’s Artful Bias

    I’m sure Rockefeller is very charming. How about picking up his autobiography entitled ‘Memoirs’ and flicking to page 405 were you shall read that quote, (I’ll put it again in case you’ve repressed it.)

    For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as “internationalists” and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure – one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. -David Rockefeller

    Rockfeller Memoir = Treason

  39. Deny science? When scientists talk of the UN IPCC report not being remotely based on reality, they must be crazy right? When they resign because of the unethical political manipulation of the report they must need their heads examined.

    Ezra Taft Benson resigned from the Eisenhower cabinet, noting that Eisenhower was a communist. Just because one nutball resigns doesn’t make the nutball sane.

    Out of every 100 climate scientists, 99.5 agree that the best science we have shows human activities are making significant contributions to our changing climate. Why do you choose to believe the half-percent, the crazy outliers? That’s silly.

    I worked with David Rockefeller. You should be ashamed to put such bizarre words in the mouth of anybody, but especially a gentle guy like that.

  40. There is something we definitely agree on. If efficient clean affordable energy/ fuels/ engines were released to the public I would be all for it. That isn’t Christian ethics, that’s just common sense.

    Regardless of who is forced to clean up their acts, the people end up footing the bill, because costs are always passed down the supply chain. The point is that the case the communist UN makes is that HUMANS by creating CO2 are HEATING THE EARTH and it must be stopped. Disregard any data that may suggest that there may be some other significant factors of course.

    The solar output has been rising for decades, it should actually begin to cool soon. The effect of the differing amounts of energy reaching the Earth is gradual as the ecosystems slowly adjust to having more energy inputted.

    Far from being an established fact, scientists acknowledge that they actually have very limited real information regarding the effects of warming oceans, and CO2 in the weather system.

    Deny science? When scientists talk of the UN IPCC report not being remotely based on reality, they must be crazy right? When they resign because of the unethical political manipulation of the report they must need their heads examined?

    Population control/ reduction is on the cards, whether you want to believe it or not. I suggest watching a film on google video called ‘Endgame: Blueprint for Human Enslavement’ for starters.

    NSSM 200

    When news agencies start putting out articles hinting at the idea of a one-child policy being encouraged in order to reduce emissions, or talking about your babies carbon footprint, you should start to see where this could head.

    There is nothing tin-foil hat about facts to do with the solar system. Indeed, the phrase sounds like a desperate ad hominem. The science is available in the article for people to look at. Which is more of a differing view that the governments or UN will ever give.

    You say quotes are wrong. Prove it. There are plenty more where they all come from.

    Quotes
    Planned Parenthood

    Regarding what my solution would be? There are much bigger problems afflicting mankind than the puny amount of CO2 we produce. It shouldn’t be an issue, like the ‘global cooling hysteria’ shouldn’t have been 30 years ago. The banking establishments’ control of almost everything, feminisms war on families and men, systematic dumbing down of children in state schools, peak oil scam, engineered lifespan in consumer goods, toxins in vaccines and so on.

    And they all work using the:

    Problem-Reaction-Solution paradigm.

    The Earth is going to be fine. It is the fate of common people at the hands of those who believe they have earnt the right to rule the planet that should be worrying you.

    “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time Magazine and other publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected the promises of discretion for almost forty years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subject to the bright lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world-government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the National auto-determination practiced in past centuries” | David Rockefeller in an address to Trilateral Commission meeting, 1991

    “We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.” | David Rockefeller

    “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
    – Ted Turner
    – CNN founder and UN supporter – quoted in the McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, June ’96

    “For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents such as my encounter with Castro to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure–one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it. | David Rockefeller

  41. I agree about encouraging people not to be so wasteful etc. But this goes way beyond that, which is something most (including you) don’t see. This is about global graduated taxation. About global policing and global laws.

    I’d encourage you to get a look at the Kyoto treaty text, and pay attention to air pollution laws in the U.S. It’s about people who make messes cleaning them up. Your mother doesn’t run the planet, so you have to clean up after yourself. That’s no grand conspiracy, it’s just good ethics. Good, also Christian ethics, I might add. Claiming to see a grand conspiracy doesn’t mean there is one.

    You say won’t mean jailing the culprits. What it DOES mean is using the CO2 myth to push for population control, controlling people’s productivity and eliminating the poor, or ‘useless eaters’ and elitists call them.

    You’ve got a very active imagination. How does population control reduce stack emissions? We’re talking about controlling emissions from power plants and automobiles. We’re talking about using efficient engines instead of ineffecient engines. We’re talking about green remediation. Planting trees doesn’t kill people.

    Take a deep breath, look at what is really being advocated.

    This is all about communism. Read the quotes, check all of my links. Think.

    I think you don’t get out enough. Your quotes are extremely biased, often wrong. Listen to the facts, notice that your quotes don’t often square with them. Think, indeed.

    Remember, the solar system is heating up.

    Don’t use tinfoil hat arguments, and think. The solar system is not heating up in a fashion consistent with Earth’s atmospheric warming. Solar radiation is consistent enough that it’s not causing the increase in greenhouse gases, nor the increase in global temperature on Earth.

    Heck, as far as solar radiation, were it not for global dimming, we’d be another couple of degrees warmer already. Think. Read. Get the facts. Don’t deny science just because it’s the counter-culture, camp thing to do.

    If the increase in the sun’s temperature was enough to affect the temperature of Pluto, it wouldn’t occur to you that it might have a stronger effect on Earth?

    You really need to stop hanging out with people who wear tinfoil hats. We have eight minutes of vacuum between us and the Sun. Increase in the Sun’s temperature does not warm our atmosphere — other radiation from the Sun does. (Is there an increase in the Sun’s temp? Measured how and where? How does it differ from any other variation in the Sun, which also doesn’t affect our emission of greenhouse gases?)

    On top of that, the majority of pollutants and chemicals produced are done so by governments and corporations. Not the common people. Especially not poverty-stricken people.

    Which is why treaties work, and why controls are put in place first and foremost on point source polluters, like corporations — coal-fired power plants, etc. The Bush administration complaint about Kyoto, by the way, is that it requires controls on governments and corporations, not on poverty-stricken people. It’s a foolish stand for them to take, and even worse for you to take when you argue governments are the problem.

    This revolves around globalists and elitists trying to impose their beliefs on the middle and working classes. Carbon credits are a complete farce and anyone who disagrees is a brainwashed idiot.

    Then don’t buy carbon credits. It’s a free market solution that works well with other pollutants, around the world. Maybe you’re right, maybe a government-imposed tax would be better . . . no, I don’t think so.

    There probably are better solutions to get reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and to provides green and brown sinks for carbon dioxide. Credits help us get there. If one is really concerned about heavy government regulation, one should probably consider supporting the free market solutions that do exist, in order to make the point that heavy regulation is not the path.

    I’m getting less certain that you’ve thought these issues through.

    I don’t hate humans or America. I hate the globalists, the banking cartels and the military industrial complex. To read my article and come to the ‘conclusion’ that I’m for dumping garbage in the air and I hate America and people is insane.

    Your article is closer to insane. What’s your solution? I don’t see a rational proposal other than claiming 99% of all scientists are crazy. Somehow, pointing fingers at honest, hard-working and underpaid scientists, and calling them crazy, or political pawns, or anything else, just doesn’t appeal to me as a solution to these problems.

    Your misrepresentation of Eric Pianka’s speech is enough to convince me you aren’t serious about the issue. Clearly you don’t understand what he said. Clearly you don’t wish to give his learned opinion, or his recitation of facts, a fair hearing.

    You’ve got a lot of extremist junk cited, and you ask for rationality. It’s highly ironic. (On Pianka, you can start here, and follow the links: http://austringer.net/wp/?p=254)

    Where the hell did that come from eh.

  42. Ed, I think you have some valid points, but are missing the bigger picture.
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312779,00.html
    The new movement for women is sterilization, to save the planet.
    As the above links shows, a women aborted her child, then had herself sterilized to help stop global warming.

    Now as the science is debated, and we all know earth’s temperature changes in cycles, it seems premature to be offering up such radical solutions, such as culling 90% of the population, sterilization, energy taxes and so on. While we should strive to reduce emissions, for the air we breathe, it seems suspect that these solutions also happen to be stated goals of certain political groups.

    They are using the threat of Global Warming to scare people into conforming with the Globalist Agenda. I think what the author is angry about is the use of propaganda and deception to trick the masses into acceptance of the Globalist policy. I don’t think the author promoted dumping garbage into the air, or hatred of America, that seems like slanderous insults you added in an attempt to destroy his character, and make his motivations seem suspect.

  43. There are different levels to reality. Just because something becomes law doesn’t mean it’s right or just or okay. Just look at the Patriot Act, which was pushed through Congress on account of 9/11 apparently. What they don’t tell you is, it was written up long before 9/11.

    But that’s another story.

    I agree about encouraging people not to be so wasteful etc. But this goes way beyond that, which is something most (including you) don’t see. This is about global graduated taxation. About global policing and global laws.

    You say won’t mean jailing the culprits. What it DOES mean is using the CO2 myth to push for population control, controlling people’s productivity and eliminating the poor, or ‘useless eaters’ and elitists call them.

    This is all about communism. Read the quotes, check all of my links. Think.

    Remember, the solar system is heating up. If the increase in the suns temperature was enough to affect the temperature of Pluto, it wouldn’t occur to you that it might have a stronger effect on Earth?

    On top of that, the majority of pollutants and chemicals produced are done so by governments and corporations. Not the common people. Especially not poverty-stricken people.

    This revolves around globalists and elitists trying to impose their beliefs on the middle and working classes. Carbon credits are a complete farce and anyone who disagrees is a brainwashed idiot.

    I don’t hate humans or America. I hate the globalists, the banking cartels and the military industrial complex. To read my article and come to the ‘conclusion’ that I’m for dumping garbage in the air and I hate America and people is insane.

    Where the hell did that come from eh.

  44. Is there a hoax about climate you haven’t repeated in this post? It’ll take some time to figure it out.

    In the meantime, consider this: Your initial premise is faulty.

    To convict someone you need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the allegation is true. Beyond a reasonable doubt.

    That’s the standard for criminal convictions in U.S. courts. It’s not the standard for establishing cause-and-effect liability in civil cases. No one is suggesting jailing the culprits. So a “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard is too far. What we’re suggesting is taking responsibility and acting to ameliorate the damage.

    For that standard, the fact of rising temperatures is enough to require action. The added evidence — which is quite extensive, despite your attempts to deny it — that humans are causing the straw-that-broke-the-camel’s-back increase in warming is enough to provide a moral imperative to our acting to curb emissions. Heck, we have a legal duty to curb emissions anyway, under common law, even without the added harm of global warming. Air pollution damages health and the economy without the warming.

    So, what is it you’re really angry at? Why are you arguing for dumping garbage in the air? Why do you hate America, and humans, so?

  45. Pingback: Global warming? : November 2007 : Field Marshall Watkins : My Telegraph

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s